Rutgers

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:: .... especially given that your argument was the same ole tired nonsense usually offered against hate crime legislation.

And this is a good example of why I offer the "same ole tired nonsense" against hate crime legislation.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/24/10496684-malicious-or-childish-act-rutgers-webcam-spying-trial-opens

Malicious, or childish, act? Rutgers webcam spying trial opens

NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. - Opening statements Friday in the trial of a former Rutgers student accused of using a webcam to spy on his roommate's intimate encounter with another man focused on whether the defendant was malicious or just acting foolishly.
………
Defense attorneys countered that Ravi, 18 at the time but now 19, behaved childishly but did not commit any crime. He faces 15 counts of invasion of privacy, witness and evidence tampering and bias intimidation, a hate crime punishable by up to 10 years in state prison, in New Jersey's Middlesex County Court.
………
Authorities say Ravi used the webcam on his computer to check on Clementi when he'd asked to have the room to himself so he could have company.
Ravi posted a Twitter message about it: "Roommate asked for the room till midnight. I went into molly's room and turned on my webcam. I saw him making out with a dude. Yay."

A stupid act by Ravi?
Yes.
A not nice act by Ravi?
No, certainly not nice.
But 10 years in state prison for essentially making fun of someone?
What an unbelievable crock of shit.

Posts : 1328

I'm assuming the witness and evidence tampering would count for the majority of that time. Didn't he post something on youtube - wondered if he let it be known he was happy to know his roommate swung that way?

Posts : 3520

happy jack wrote:: But 10 years in state prison for essentially making fun of someone?
What an unbelievable crock of shit.

Five of which he'd be serving without the bias intimidation charge, if he even gets convicted.

And I'll point out that questioning the validity of its application in specific cases is an entirely different argument than whether the statute should exist at all.

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:: But 10 years in state prison for essentially making fun of someone?
What an unbelievable crock of shit.

Five of which he'd be serving without the bias intimidation charge, if he even gets convicted.

I guess you're right.
A mere extra five years in state prison really doesn't seem like much time at all (especially when it's not you who is the one serving that time).

Posts : 3520

Better than being dead, like the victim in this case. But that never looks so bad when it's not you doing the dyin', right?

Point being that he's facing up to five years "for essentially making fun of someone", which would seem egregious too, but yet your only fixated on the intimidation charge.

It's still a moot point, regardless, since they have yet to make their case.

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:: Better than being dead, like the victim in this case. But that never looks so bad when it's not you doing the dyin', right?

A lot of things are better than being dead.
Did I somehow manage to miss the part in the article where Ravi killed Clementi?

Posts : 875

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:: Better than being dead, like the victim in this case. But that never looks so bad when it's not you doing the dyin', right?

A lot of things are better than being dead.
Did I somehow manage to miss the part in the article where Ravi killed Clementi?

I understand your issues with hate crimes, but I do not understand why you don't feel 10 years is appropriate. Invasion of privacy is a very serious issue.

What would be an appropriate sentence for someone caught filming your mother, aunt/s, sister/s, or grandmother/s while they were using the toilet? (let's even assume that the film isn't posted online and the family member doesn't commit suicide)

I would want to kill the person who violated a family member like that myself, but since we live in a civilized society 10 years seems appropriate, if not lenient.

Posts : 6988

paul87920 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:: Better than being dead, like the victim in this case. But that never looks so bad when it's not you doing the dyin', right?

A lot of things are better than being dead.
Did I somehow manage to miss the part in the article where Ravi killed Clementi?

I understand your issues with hate crimes, but I do not understand why you don't feel 10 years is appropriate. Invasion of privacy is a very serious issue.

What would be an appropriate sentence for someone caught filming your mother, aunt/s, sister/s, or grandmother/s while they were using the toilet? (let's even assume that the film isn't posted online and the family member doesn't commit suicide)

I would want to kill the person who violated a family member like that myself, but since we live in a civilized society 10 years seems appropriate, if not lenient.

That's not my issue.
Should someone get 10 years for filming your mother, but only 7 years for filming your grandmother, and 5-1/2 years less time off for good behavior for filming your aunt?
Would this be a hate crime if a gay man filmed a straight man engaging in an illicit affair with a woman other than his wife?
My issue is that the penalty should be based on the crime, not on the victim's group.

Posts : 875

I wasn't sure because your post suggested that in addition to your issue with the hate crime that you also had an issue with...

happy jack wrote:: But 10 years in state prison

...the length of the sentence...

happy jack wrote:: for essentially making fun of someone?

...& the invasion of privacy committed beyond the hate crime charge.

Posts : 6988

paul87920 wrote:: What would be an appropriate sentence for someone caught filming your mother, aunt/s, sister/s, or grandmother/s while they were using the toilet? (let's even assume that the film isn't posted online and the family member doesn't commit suicide)

Clementi's encounter was not posted online.

Posts : 6988

This sentence seems more proportionate to the crime than the sentence of 10 years in state prison originally sought by the prosecution.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/30/11955003-former-rutgers-student-dharun-ravi-to-go-to-jail-thursday-in-webcam-spying-case?lite

Former Rutgers student Dharun Ravi to go to jail Thursday in webcam spying case

After apologizing for using a webcam to spy on his male roommate kissing another man days before the roommate killed himself, former Rutgers University student Dharun Ravi told a New Jersey state court he would report to jail Thursday to serve his 30-day sentence.

Posts : 3520

Hmmm... I wonder if the prosecution might actually win the appeal. I'm not sure if the judge can just ignore the mandatory sentences like that.

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:: Hmmm... I wonder if the prosecution might actually win the appeal. I'm not sure if the judge can just ignore the mandatory sentences like that.

It looks as if he can. We'll just have to wait and see what happens with the appeal.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/05/dharun_ravi_reports_to_jail.html

A judge may impose a lesser sentence if he or she finds there were "extraordinary circumstances" associated with a case. Berman found that to be true in Ravi's case.